The anti-spyware bill we reported on last week dubbed the Safeguard Against …

Share this story

The anti-spyware bill we reported on last week dubbed the Safeguard Against Privacy Invasions Act (Spy Act, for short) has picked up steam, clearing the committee in the House this morning with a 45-4 vote. A full vote in the House has not yet been scheduled, but it is expected to pass there and then move on to the Senate. The bill details how software ought to behave with regards to privacy issues, and it mandates that applications seek permission from users before transmitting sensitive information online. Technology companies are wary of the bill, arguing that it will introduce nuisance into the lives of users who will have to be constantly notified by applications as to what they're doing and why. However, several changes were made to the bill today in the hopes of alleviating the fears of tech companies that aren't profiteering on spyware.

The full Commerce committee on Thursday made over two dozen changes to the version of the bill that was approved last week by a subcommittee. Among the changes: Network providers may use monitoring software to guard against network security and fraud; software vendors may choose from certain specific notices when asking for permission; and the anti-spyware regulations do not apply to software located on a server.

These changes didn't change the tune of the bill's opponents, however, who say that the routinization of authorization requests will actually blur the lines between legitimate and illegitimate software, and many users will simply come to ignore them. All the while, opponents argue, spyware companies outside of the United States will continue their practices unabated.

In related news, Business Week is running a story on adware that's worth a read because it says something about the "they'll do it anyway" mentality. Those of you unlucky enough to bump into the likes of Gator know that the application can serve up ads from fairly well-known companies, from Motorola to British Airways, from Sprint to Yahoo. These companies dance with the devil for advertising because of high click-through rates and the assumption that people aren't entirely aware of why they're getting these ads in the first place. Maybe they're supposed to be there?

Several studies show that between 60% and 90% of people with adware on their machines aren't sure how it got there or are confused about what it does. Claria disputes this, saying its own study in 2002 found that 94% of users knew Gator was installed on their computers. Claria also points to a 2002 study sponsored by The Washington Post, which was suing Claria for loosening pop-ups on its Web site. The study found that only 13% of Claria customers didn't know Gator was on their computers. Trouble is, that same study indicated that only 43% were aware that Gator caused pop-up ads.

At least with the Spy Act, such adware produced in the US will raise that percentage dramatically and hopefully expose these applications for what they are: nuisances that users hate. No wonder, as BW notes, that the actual advertisers don't want to talk about their campaigns with adware companies.

Share this story

Ken Fisher
Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation. Emailken@arstechnica.com//Twitter@kenfisher